There is no emergence

[Age]

Sure, otherwise it is not a car.

So, if the object known as a 'car', to MILLIONS of people, is NOT moving, then what is 'it', EXACTLY to 'you' if 'it' is NOT 'a car'?

'you', "bahman", REALLY DO say the MOST STUPID, IDIOTIC, and NONSENSICAL 'things' when 'you' get CAUGHT UP in 'your' OWN 'mess'.

No, they have different functioning.

Therefore, 'strong emergence' EXISTS. Which MEANS; There IS 'emergence' AND 'strong emergence' AT THAT.

Such a waste of time.

EXACTLY, and this is what me and "others" have been POINTING OUT and TELLING 'you' here, "bahman".

[Dimebag]

"dimebag" I am just wondering if you claim there are some 'things' that do not follow the laws of nature?

If yes, then what are some of those 'things', to you?

But if no, then okay.

Everything is nature, including humans, and consciousness.

Okay. So far you seem to be saying and claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "bahman" accused you of saying and claiming.

And, this would have been enough.

Humans like to describe the ways that nature behaves, and we call those laws. Nature is primary, those laws are descriptions of the behaviours humans observe.

Humans like to think they can describe nature without including themselves in that picture. By doing so, they have been able to explain or are in the process of explaining everything but their own nature, that is, that of consciousness. But now, when we try to build an explanation of consciousness, from those laws, we are at a loss.

I found that the actual explanation for 'consciousness', itself, came from looking at the ACTUAL way 'Nature', and 'Life', Itself, works. But this is another matter. I was just curious how correct or incorrect "bahman" was.

There are some possible reasons why. One reason could be that, what humans are describing is not nature itself, but some pragmatic equivalent, that is, a map. Now, when they get to the heart of the engine of that creation, it cannot be applied to the “territory”, as to build that map, they had to strip out the very thing they are now trying to explain.

I just found human beings had NOT YET REALLY explored and studied the ACTUAL 'thing' that they explore and study WITH, and that is; 'thoughts', themselves.

So, are those laws of nature truly explaining nature? I don’t know. They are useful descriptions, but they miss the very essence via which those maps were made.

Which is, AGAIN, just 'thoughts', themselves.

I think Bahman mischaracterises others views of the relation between mind and what we call “matter”, because his view of mind is that of something wholly different from matter, so he sees no way in which any configuration of what we call matter, could possibly produce mind.

Yet, all it takes is simple observation of the birth of a young life, as you see such a life emerge from the joining of sperm and ovum, taking on a creative, transformative process in not a closed system, but a system of independent but semi-permeable boundaries, where nothing but what we call “matter” is at play.

Now, if we were open to a discussion on what really is what we call matter, which I think humans are actually ignorant of, and of course by extension the metaphysics surrounding matter and mind, and what is a living organism, then possibly some synthesis could occur between those two antithetical states of mind and matter.

From a materialist point of view, emergence IS the only option. I am not saying I completely agree that materialism IS the correct view to have, but, it is the dominant view for understanding living systems, which we are, and as such is what we must work with unless a better view which did not have this mind matter division, yet could explain living systems were to “emerge” (pun not intended).

[Age]

Everything is nature, including humans, and consciousness.

Okay. So far you seem to be saying and claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "bahman" accused you of saying and claiming.

And, this would have been enough.

Humans like to describe the ways that nature behaves, and we call those laws. Nature is primary, those laws are descriptions of the behaviours humans observe.

Humans like to think they can describe nature without including themselves in that picture. By doing so, they have been able to explain or are in the process of explaining everything but their own nature, that is, that of consciousness. But now, when we try to build an explanation of consciousness, from those laws, we are at a loss.

I found that the actual explanation for 'consciousness', itself, came from looking at the ACTUAL way 'Nature', and 'Life', Itself, works. But this is another matter. I was just curious how correct or incorrect "bahman" was.

There are some possible reasons why. One reason could be that, what humans are describing is not nature itself, but some pragmatic equivalent, that is, a map. Now, when they get to the heart of the engine of that creation, it cannot be applied to the “territory”, as to build that map, they had to strip out the very thing they are now trying to explain.

I just found human beings had NOT YET REALLY explored and studied the ACTUAL 'thing' that they explore and study WITH, and that is; 'thoughts', themselves.

So, are those laws of nature truly explaining nature? I don’t know. They are useful descriptions, but they miss the very essence via which those maps were made.

Which is, AGAIN, just 'thoughts', themselves.

I think Bahman mischaracterises others views of the relation between mind and what we call “matter”, because his view of mind is that of something wholly different from matter, so he sees no way in which any configuration of what we call matter, could possibly produce mind.

Yet, all it takes is simple observation of the birth of a young life, as you see such a life emerge from the joining of sperm and ovum, taking on a creative, transformative process in not a closed system, but a system of independent but semi-permeable boundaries, where nothing but what we call “matter” is at play.

Now, if we were open to a discussion on what really is what we call matter, which I think humans are actually ignorant of, and of course by extension the metaphysics surrounding matter and mind, and what is a living organism, then possibly some synthesis could occur between those two antithetical states of mind and matter.

From a materialist point of view, emergence IS the only option. I am not saying I completely agree that materialism IS the correct view to have,

If absolutely ANY one wants to call "themself" a "materialist" and/or CLAIM that absolutely EVERY 'thing' is made up of 'matter', then we could have a discussion, where their CLAIM could and would be very easily and very simply REFUTED.

but, it is the dominant view for understanding living systems, which we are, and as such is what we must work with unless a better view which did not have this mind matter division, yet could explain living systems were to “emerge” (pun not intended).

But WHERE, EXACTLY, is this SUPPOSED 'mind' / 'matter' division MEANT TO BE?

I do NOT SEE absolutely ANY 'division', absolutely ANYWHERE. Except, OF COURSE, within some human 'thinking', ONLY.

[bahman]

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY what you wrote in YOUR opening post, which 'you' CLAIM is 'your argument', IS UNSOUND and INVALID.

If you STILL have NOT YET RECOGNIZED this Fact, then I will SAY what you TELL me to do, "Go back and LOOK AT 'it' AGAIN, and, if you do NOT UNDERSTAND what I am SAYING, SHOWING, and PROVING, then that is YOUR FAULT".




Come on, you can NOT REALLY BE this STUPID. Or, can 'you'?

ONCE AGAIN, A 'definition' of some 'thing', even if it is YOUR 'definition' can NOT, logically, contain the words, "There is NO explanation for it".


Okay, I read it AGAIN.

And, now that I have read it AGAIN, this FURTHER PROVES what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING, as well as FURTHER REFUTES what you have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

So, THANK YOU for that link.



I CLEARLY SAID if that is NOT 'correct', then CORRECT 'it'.

Are you REALLY as DEAF as you are CLEARLY BLIND?

If that is NOT what you are SAYING, then do you REALLY BELIEVE just REPEATING the 'same' WILL CORRECT 'it'?

What is the REASON you are STALLING and DEFLECTING here? Could it be because I have just SHOWN and PROVED that what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING is NOT True, NOT Right, and NOT Correct?

Just CORRECT what you BELIEVE was INCORRECT in what I SAID.

What is wrong with OP?

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' that I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN and PROVED so far.

If you have NOT YET been able to work this out or just do NOT want to accept this Fact, then I will NOT help you.

For only you can STOP doing 'that' what is BLOCKING and PREVENTING you from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND here.

Which post? What you have pointed out regarding OP?

[bahman]

Who is 'they'?

But the 'brain', itself, can NOT be 'conscious'. This is because the 'brain' is just made up of visible 'matter', itself, alone.

All materialist.

1.There is NO actual 'thing' as a "materialist".

Of course, there is. There are people who believe in materialism.

2. The 'things' that you label and call "materialists" do NOT ALL BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'things'.

That is not correct.

This is EXTREMELY FUNNY considering how MANY TIMES 'you' can NOT answer QUESTIONS when 'you' are CHALLENGED over the 'things' that 'you' CLAIM are true.


Is there? And, what IS that 'difference' EXACTLY?

Can 'you' answer?

The difference is obvious: Mind experience what material produce.

You say this as though there is only one Mind, which is a Truly laughable thing for you to say or even suggest.

No, I think there are many minds. I have an argument that there are at least two.

Without mind, experience just happens.

Okay.. BUT, you SAID and CLAMED; "There is a difference between 'mind' and 'God'.So, what is the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God', EXACTLY?

by the way, this is an extremely long and slow drawn out process when I HAVE TO, literally, SPELL 'things'out for you here.

God, if there is any, is a mind who is the creator of everything.

[Age]

What is wrong with OP?

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' that I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN and PROVED so far.

If you have NOT YET been able to work this out or just do NOT want to accept this Fact, then I will NOT help you.

For only you can STOP doing 'that' what is BLOCKING and PREVENTING you from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND here.

Which post? What you have pointed out regarding OP?

In the oneS that you have IGNORED.

This is the last time I am going to SAY this okay?

I did as you SAID, and;

I CONSIDERED "a system with many parts each part has a set of properties."

I NOT just "assumed" as you SAID we do, I KNOW "that the system has a specific property."

This property IS not reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property.

There IS a reason that this system has this property rather than any other property.

This DOES NOT necessarily mean that there is a function that describes the property of the system.

Therefore the property of the system IS NOT necessarily a function of properties of parts.

Therefore, there IS emergence, AND strong emergence, AT THAT, since the existence of the function does NOT necessarily implement that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts, AND, because the system the specific property of the system is NOT any function of the properties of the parts.

[Age]

All materialist.

1.There is NO actual 'thing' as a "materialist".

Of course, there is. There are people who believe in materialism.

So, WHENEVER a 'human being' BELIEVES in SOME 'thing', then, to you, that is WHAT 'they' ARE, correct?

Which ALSO MEANS that WHATEVER a 'human being' BELIEVES in, then that is WHAT 'they' ARE as well, correct?

Your Honesty would be MUCH APPRECIATED here, AS ALWAYS. But your REFUSAL to ANSWER these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, Honestly, WILL PROVE True what I am ALLUDING to.

LOOK, there is NO such 'thing' as a "materialist", BUT, there are ACTUAL such 'things' as 'you', HUMAN BEINGS, of which there are SOME who BELIEVE (in) SOME 'things'. Understood?

If this is NOT YET understood by 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, then it WILL and DOES become CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD later on.

2. The 'things' that you label and call "materialists" do NOT ALL BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'things'.

That is not correct.

So, do ALL the so-called "materialists" BELIEVE that God does exist or that God does NOT exist?

I will DISREGARD asking for CLARIFICATION into the OTHER COUNTLESS questions regarding ALL of the OTHER EXACT SAME 'things' that you SAY and CLAIM that they ALL BELIEVE.

ONCE AGAIN, the further out discussions progress the MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'things' you SAY.

The difference is obvious: Mind experience what material produce.

You say this as though there is only one Mind, which is a Truly laughable thing for you to say or even suggest.

No, I think there are many minds. I have an argument that there are at least two.

And, as we ALREADY KNOW that so-called "argument" has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'null and void', as some would say.

Without mind, experience just happens.

Okay.. BUT, you SAID and CLAMED; "There is a difference between 'mind' and 'God'.So, what is the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God', EXACTLY?

by the way, this is an extremely long and slow drawn out process when I HAVE TO, literally, SPELL 'things'out for you here.

God, if there is any, is a mind who is the creator of everything.

So, to 'you', "bahman", the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God' IS - 'God' IS 'a mind'.

There does NOT look like there is much 'difference' here AT ALL. TALK ABOUT ABSURDITY to the EXTREME.

Is a 'mind' a 'material thing' to 'you'?

How could 'a mind' create EVERY 'material thing'?

Do you ACCEPT that what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, could be DIFFERENT from what you BELIEVE, SAY and/or CLAIM here?

[bahman]

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' that I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN and PROVED so far.

If you have NOT YET been able to work this out or just do NOT want to accept this Fact, then I will NOT help you.

For only you can STOP doing 'that' what is BLOCKING and PREVENTING you from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND here.

Which post? What you have pointed out regarding OP?

In the oneS that you have IGNORED.

This is the last time I am going to SAY this okay?

I did as you SAID, and;

I CONSIDERED "a system with many parts each part has a set of properties."

I NOT just "assumed" as you SAID we do, I KNOW "that the system has a specific property."

This property IS not reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property.

There IS a reason that this system has this property rather than any other property.

This DOES NOT necessarily mean that there is a function that describes the property of the system.

It does necessary mean that there is a function. Do you know what a function is?

Therefore the property of the system IS NOT necessarily a function of properties of parts.

Therefore, there IS emergence, AND strong emergence, AT THAT, since the existence of the function does NOT necessarily implement that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts, AND, because the system the specific property of the system is NOT any function of the properties of the parts.

You failed as always,

[bahman]

1.There is NO actual 'thing' as a "materialist".

Of course, there is. There are people who believe in materialism.

So, WHENEVER a 'human being' BELIEVES in SOME 'thing', then, to you, that is WHAT 'they' ARE, correct?

Which ALSO MEANS that WHATEVER a 'human being' BELIEVES in, then that is WHAT 'they' ARE as well, correct?

Your Honesty would be MUCH APPRECIATED here, AS ALWAYS. But your REFUSAL to ANSWER these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, Honestly, WILL PROVE True what I am ALLUDING to.

LOOK, there is NO such 'thing' as a "materialist", BUT, there are ACTUAL such 'things' as 'you', HUMAN BEINGS, of which there are SOME who BELIEVE (in) SOME 'things'. Understood?

If this is NOT YET understood by 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, then it WILL and DOES become CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD later on.

I just said that there are materialists. I didn't say what they believe is correct.

2. The 'things' that you label and call "materialists" do NOT ALL BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'things'.

That is not correct.

So, do ALL the so-called "materialists" BELIEVE that God does exist or that God does NOT exist?

I will DISREGARD asking for CLARIFICATION into the OTHER COUNTLESS questions regarding ALL of the OTHER EXACT SAME 'things' that you SAY and CLAIM that they ALL BELIEVE.

ONCE AGAIN, the further out discussions progress the MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'things' you SAY.

The idea of God has nothing to do with materialism.

You say this as though there is only one Mind, which is a Truly laughable thing for you to say or even suggest.

No, I think there are many minds. I have an argument that there are at least two.

And, as we ALREADY KNOW that so-called "argument" has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'null and void', as some would say.

Ok, as you wish to believe.

Okay.. BUT, you SAID and CLAMED; "There is a difference between 'mind' and 'God'.So, what is the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God', EXACTLY?

by the way, this is an extremely long and slow drawn out process when I HAVE TO, literally, SPELL 'things'out for you here.

God, if there is any, is a mind who is the creator of everything.

So, to 'you', "bahman", the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God' IS - 'God' IS 'a mind'.

There does NOT look like there is much 'difference' here AT ALL. TALK ABOUT ABSURDITY to the EXTREME.

Is a 'mind' a 'material thing' to 'you'?

How could 'a mind' create EVERY 'material thing'?

Do you ACCEPT that what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, could be DIFFERENT from what you BELIEVE, SAY and/or CLAIM here?

No. God is a mind. The difference between this mind and other minds is that this mind is the creator.

[Age]

Which post? What you have pointed out regarding OP?

In the oneS that you have IGNORED.

This is the last time I am going to SAY this okay?

I did as you SAID, and;

I CONSIDERED "a system with many parts each part has a set of properties."

I NOT just "assumed" as you SAID we do, I KNOW "that the system has a specific property."

This property IS not reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property.

There IS a reason that this system has this property rather than any other property.

This DOES NOT necessarily mean that there is a function that describes the property of the system.

It does necessary mean that there is a function. Do you know what a function is?

Yes.

What does a 'function' mean, to you?

Therefore the property of the system IS NOT necessarily a function of properties of parts.

Therefore, there IS emergence, AND strong emergence, AT THAT, since the existence of the function does NOT necessarily implement that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts, AND, because the system the specific property of the system is NOT any function of the properties of the parts.

You failed as always,

Did I?

What is wrong with my argument here?

[bahman]

In the oneS that you have IGNORED.

This is the last time I am going to SAY this okay?

I did as you SAID, and;

I CONSIDERED "a system with many parts each part has a set of properties."

I NOT just "assumed" as you SAID we do, I KNOW "that the system has a specific property."

This property IS not reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property.

There IS a reason that this system has this property rather than any other property.

This DOES NOT necessarily mean that there is a function that describes the property of the system.

It does necessary mean that there is a function. Do you know what a function is?

Yes.

What does a 'function' mean, to you?

Therefore the property of the system IS NOT necessarily a function of properties of parts.

Therefore, there IS emergence, AND strong emergence, AT THAT, since the existence of the function does NOT necessarily implement that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts, AND, because the system the specific property of the system is NOT any function of the properties of the parts.

You failed as always,

Did I?

What is wrong with my argument here?

First, what is a function?

[Age]

Of course, there is. There are people who believe in materialism.

So, WHENEVER a 'human being' BELIEVES in SOME 'thing', then, to you, that is WHAT 'they' ARE, correct?

Which ALSO MEANS that WHATEVER a 'human being' BELIEVES in, then that is WHAT 'they' ARE as well, correct?

Your Honesty would be MUCH APPRECIATED here, AS ALWAYS. But your REFUSAL to ANSWER these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, Honestly, WILL PROVE True what I am ALLUDING to.

LOOK, there is NO such 'thing' as a "materialist", BUT, there are ACTUAL such 'things' as 'you', HUMAN BEINGS, of which there are SOME who BELIEVE (in) SOME 'things'. Understood?

If this is NOT YET understood by 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, then it WILL and DOES become CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD later on.

I just said that there are materialists.

I just SHOWED and POINTED OUT WHY the "materialists" word is a MISNOMER.

And thus just PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, True WHY there are NO such 'things' as "materialists", themselves.

But, ONCE AGAIN, you appear to be INCAPABLE of SEEING, UNDERSTAND, and COMPREHENDING this Fact, and this is, ONCE AGAIN, because of the current BELIEF that you are HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY true.

I didn't say what they believe is correct.

NEITHER DID I.

I just POINTED OUT that just because 'you', human beings, CHOOSE to BELIEVE (in) some 'things' (being) are true, that this, in and of itself, does NOT make A 'human being' that 'thing'.

When, and IF, 'you' LEARN how-to become OPEN, and NOT CLOSED like 'you' are now, when this is being written, then 'you' WILL SEE and UNDERSTAND what IS being POINTED OUT and EXPLAINED here. Until then 'you' will REMAIN EXACTLY as 'you' are.

That is not correct.

So, do ALL the so-called "materialists" BELIEVE that God does exist or that God does NOT exist?

I will DISREGARD asking for CLARIFICATION into the OTHER COUNTLESS questions regarding ALL of the OTHER EXACT SAME 'things' that you SAY and CLAIM that they ALL BELIEVE.

ONCE AGAIN, the further out discussions progress the MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'things' you SAY.

The idea of God has nothing to do with materialism.

'you' have, ONCE AGAIN, FAILED ABSOLUTELY to SEE and GRASP the POINT here.

No, I think there are many minds. I have an argument that there are at least two.

And, as we ALREADY KNOW that so-called "argument" has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'null and void', as some would say.

Ok, as you wish to believe.

But I do NOT 'believe' this.

I KNOW this IS A Fact. This is because the PROOF is here for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE.

God, if there is any, is a mind who is the creator of everything.

So, to 'you', "bahman", the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God' IS - 'God' IS 'a mind'.

There does NOT look like there is much 'difference' here AT ALL. TALK ABOUT ABSURDITY to the EXTREME.

Is a 'mind' a 'material thing' to 'you'?

How could 'a mind' create EVERY 'material thing'?

Do you ACCEPT that what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, could be DIFFERENT from what you BELIEVE, SAY and/or CLAIM here?

No. God is a mind. The difference between this mind and other minds is that this mind is the creator.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, this is just MORE ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY.

1. Your first, "No", we do NOT KNOW which of the TWO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that is linked to.

2. 'you', "bahman", were the ONE who wrote: "... there is a difference between mind and God." But, now, 'you' want to CLAIM that, "God is a mind". The amount of INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS 'you' WRITE "bahman" NEVER cease to AMAZE me.

3. Now 'you' are saying there is a 'difference' between 'this mind' and 'other minds' is that 'this mind' is some so-called "creator". BUT, what are these alleged and supposed "other minds", EXACTLY?

[Age]

It does necessary mean that there is a function. Do you know what a function is?

Yes.

What does a 'function' mean, to you?

You failed as always,

Did I?

What is wrong with my argument here?

First, what is a function?

BUT, 'I' just asked 'you' what does the word 'function' mean to you, FIRST, in that EXACT SAME reply. So, WHY did 'you' IGNORE 'that part', and just replied 'the part' you did here ONLY?

Also, DO NOT TELL ME that I FAILED, as ALWAYS, and then when I CHALLENGE 'you' to back up and support YOUR CLAIM, then NOT DO 'it'.

'you' are just SHOWING and PROVING how 'you' are FAILING, AGAIN.

[bahman]

Yes.

What does a 'function' mean, to you?


Did I?

What is wrong with my argument here?

First, what is a function?

BUT, 'I' just asked 'you' what does the word 'function' mean to you, FIRST, in that EXACT SAME reply. So, WHY did 'you' IGNORE 'that part', and just replied 'the part' you did here ONLY?

Also, DO NOT TELL ME that I FAILED, as ALWAYS, and then when I CHALLENGE 'you' to back up and support YOUR CLAIM, then NOT DO 'it'.

'you' are just SHOWING and PROVING how 'you' are FAILING, AGAIN.

A function is a mathematical tool that makes one-to-one mapping between two variables.

[Age]

First, what is a function?

BUT, 'I' just asked 'you' what does the word 'function' mean to you, FIRST, in that EXACT SAME reply. So, WHY did 'you' IGNORE 'that part', and just replied 'the part' you did here ONLY?

Also, DO NOT TELL ME that I FAILED, as ALWAYS, and then when I CHALLENGE 'you' to back up and support YOUR CLAIM, then NOT DO 'it'.

'you' are just SHOWING and PROVING how 'you' are FAILING, AGAIN.

A function is a mathematical tool that makes one-to-one mapping between two variables.

Okay. Therefore, there IS 'emergence', and 'strong emergence' AT THAT.